[Closed] Should Voting Be Made Compulsory?

Yes, the Conservative Party ARE a decent opposition: even if you only look at scrapping ID cards. Fancy paying £300 - £500 pounds for your ID card? then vote Labour. Fancy having to give all the details of your holiday to the government? Then vote Labour.

Sure, ID cards are a waste of time and money. But I'm not quite sure how that's related to telling your holiday details to the government - if you go abroad now you have to show your passport...

Third world country?

North Staffs Hospital and Gosport War Memorial Hospital for two examples...

Knife crime and muggings for two more?

Have you actually ever been to a real third-world (sorry, developing) country? Seen the grinding, in-your-face poverty up close? Britain is nowhere near that.

Still, making voting compulsory would certainly be interesting. And seeing how the politicians (of all colours) justify a 75% "none of the above" result would certainly be worth watching 🙂

(Some of you Brits just don't know how lucky you are. OK some hospitals aren't great but they are free at the point of delivery, and generally have doctors and nurses in them.)

I think voting is complusory in Australia ? Not sure how often they prosecute people tho.

And on the subject of protest votes, I vote for the woman every time, irrelevant of party as I think that is a bigger issue. This maddens many of my friends to the point of screaming matches in pubs, I am apparentely personally responsible for the election of Tommy Sheridan, as the only female candidate in my electorate that year was Scottish Socialist. (Israel is my fault too).

Interesting idea tho...

I vote for the woman every time, irrelevant of party as I think that is a bigger issue.

How can you possibly justify that kind of sexism?

Oh this would seem to be directed at me!

I have exercised my right not to vote for about the last 7 years.

There is no current political party which represents my political leanings.

I refuse to participate, it only encourages them. It doesn't matter who you vote for anyway a [i]politician[/i] always gets in. The desire to become a politician should be grounds for barring them from becoming one.

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X = Democracy? Yeah? Right...

[i]People died for you to have this power now excercise it please.

people died for us to have various freedoms too. Like the ability to choose whether you do something or not.

Not sure that is why she jumped in front of a horse what do you think?[/i]

Oh, you're talking about one particular person? Sorry, I was talking about hundreds of thousands of people.

r u tandemjeremy in disguise [;-)]

I do understand th OP point of view. However voting is a right not a duty. But people that don't vote should not complain.

redthunder - Member

@ Julian

r u tandemjeremy in disguise [;-)]

Puleeze - I am a libertarian anarchist - no way am I in favour of compulsory anything.

redthunder - Member

When voting, should wearing helmets be compulsory [:-)]

Tin foil hats I would have thought

Sure, ID cards are a waste of time and money. But I'm not quite sure how that's related to telling your holiday details to the government - if you go abroad now you have to show your passport...

ID cards are not related to having to give the government details of your holiday. That was meant as another example of oppressive, restrictive legislation being introduced by the current government.

It was discussed here:

[url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/labour-wants-you-to-log-your-travel-plans ]Travel plans thread[/url]

and is another very good reason to get rid of this government.

I'll tell you what I am in favour of to improve democracy is some mechanism for saying what your taxes go to - you have to pay the same amount but you could say all to healthcare or none to defence or whatever you like.

And what if everybody says 'no' to their taxes being spent in any particular area? Say the police?

Instead of putting all the onus on the non-voters, have you not thought that the politicians should share the blame for making people feel so helpless, and that their vote is going to make no difference to the way we are controlled?

All politicians are self-serving and only have their best interests at heart, they just wrap it up a little different IMO.

😛

you have to pay the same amount but you could say all to healthcare or none to defence or whatever you like.

TJ I normally credit you with having thought your ideas through but that one is just nuts. Whilst in principle it seems like a good idea you have forgotten that a population is stupid and selfish and won't fully consider the implications of their choices.

Fancy paying £300 - £500 pounds for your ID card?

So tell me, how much should an ID card cost and who should pay?*

*I should point out that I am not in favour of ID cards but my representative in the commons is apparently incapable of independent thought and refuses to represent my views!

Gonefishin - I think it would be interesting - maybe only a % of taxes being allocated in this way.

ID cards - a stupid idea, no need for anyone to pay for them. all they will do is make life easier for identity thieves and others who want to avoid detection. IMO one of the biggest blunders of this government.

Rich - Member
Instead of putting all the onus on the non-voters, have you not thought that the politicians should share the blame for making people feel so helpless, and that their vote is going to make no difference to the way we are controlled?

Couldn't agree more, but there are too many important issues coming up on which we should at least [i]try[/i] to make a difference...

Conservatives have said they will scrap ID cards: that alone should be a compelling reason to think about which way to vote.

So tell me, how much should an ID card cost and who should pay?

Pass. First thought is that if they are going to be compulsory they should be free. Leave out the biometric data to reduce the cost.

I actually have no objection to carrying an ID card: indeed, I really want to emigrate, and where ever I go it may be a requirement. I just don't want ID cards in the currently proposed format and I certainly don't want any more of my data than they already have going to the American government.

Cards could be

Name
Date Of Birth
NI Number (maybe)
Small photo

In fact, just like the plastic bit of the driving licence?

Cost of an ID card as above shouldn't be too high...

they should be free

So all the people working in the manufacture and distribution of the cards, the collation of all the data (however minimal) should all be completely altruistic and supply material and labour for free? Or do you mean that it should be paid out of general taxation? The taxation that is, in part, paid for by the general public and so will be footing the bill whether or not they are charged directly.

No, of course no-one should work or supply goods for nothing. Driving licences aren't free, so maybe ID cards could be done the same way (Can't recall what driving liceances cost, though).

The crucial point for me is that to impose something that most people don't want AND make them pay for it is wrong.

Looked at another way, it's just another tax, I suppose. Not looking forward to having to stump up several hundred quid all in one go though.

Then again, if enough people vote for a party that has pledged to scrap ID cards we won't have to! And this thread has gone full circle.

I blame thatcha, got it in first! Sorry could not resist.

JulianA, Ok making everyone vote is a good idea I can see that there would be a number of positives. The biggest being a large block of "none of the above" could hopefully not be ignored. However there are very reasonable objections regarding compuction from others. The best way to increase the vote is going to be difficult but politicians with a bit of honesty and fire would be a start, some one who actually enthuses people. Mind you I supose that when the middle ground wins elections we deserve the politiciands we have.

Voting for the woman isn't sexist - it's Affirmative Action. Or Positive Discrimination, if you like.

I've not read the whole thread so apologies if someone else suggested it. Far more people would vote if there was a simple way to do it via a web browser as it would take less effort. After all plenty of people fill in web surveys every day on Facebook, STW etc etc;-)

Voting for the woman isn't sexist - it's Affirmative Action. Or Positive Discrimination, if you like.

Voting for the man isn't sexist - it's Affirmative Action. Or Positive Discrimination, if you like.

Anyway back to the original question - the answer is No.
It would just be another erosion of civil liberty.

Apologies if this has been said already, but I speed read this.

Surely it is our democratic right not to vote (as has been said) but forcing us to vote becomes dictatorism. And the day the UK becomes a totalitarian state is the same date I shall be leaving, not acting, in a 1984 style, as their puppets.

Not everyone has the intelligence to vote and governments use this to come up with sound bites / catchy slogans to convince the dim witted to vote for them.

Im yet to meet a campainer who convinced me to vote for them, so until that happens I wont vote. I will vote for none of the above if it was an option and if the winning government had to win by a large PR majority.

Even in my life time governments have constantly gone back on promises made in elections, or decided to do something the majority didnt want ie. War in Iraqi, referendums etc etc - this is a reason many are apathetic and dissalusioned.

Sort this out and more would vote, but I really dont think everyone is engaged enough or educated enough to make voting choices that affect all of us.

For example, when you go to your doctor you dont also get the opinion of your local priest / witchdoctor / homeopathy person. You pick the one person best educate to make that importan choice. We should do this with choosing our governments.

I don't think Belgium, Greece and Australia count as dictatorships (not been to Aus though)...

I'm absoltely convinced that most of you couldn't give a flying f*** who you voted for or what their policies were as long as they represented your chosen colour (blue).
And even if hey failed you still wouldn't have the balls to admit it (see Thatcher).

I give flying whatsit who I vote for. Have voted blue, have voted red (sorry about that at the moment), have voted green. All after a while have been some what of a disapointment as they go stale and it's time for the others to have a go. Thats whats good about democracy I get to make my choice.

We have a decent opposition. The Conservative Party. See scrapping of ID cards, etc.

Scrapping ID cards - which they supported originally, and have only changed because they suddenly decided it'd be a vote winner.

Voted in favour of the Iraq war.

Will want to do even more crazy monopoly creating privatisations of the NHS, Schools etc. Are in favour of making our hospital system more like the insanely bureaucratic US one (where they have significantly worse health outcomes than here, despite spending far greater amounts of money on healthcare per person, and a large percentage of the population not getting any ongoing healthcare.)

So there's the Conservatives, with crazy right wing business-first policies which are just an extension of the whole Blairite agenda (which I guess was itself an extension of the Thatcherite agenda), which are exactly what has got us into this economic mess at the moment.

Then Labour - ignoring almost everyone about Iraq, taking us to war based on a bunch of lies, continuing to try and avoid an inquiry about it.

Or Lib Dems, some nice policies, it is nice that they are liberal on things like drugs, it is nice that they voted against Iraq, and unlike the other parties, they do appear to have principles, but they do sometimes seem a bit pie in the sky policy wise.

I have no idea who I'll vote for next time.

Joe

I think that some form of simple examination should be sat before a person is allowed to vote.

Off-topic, did anyone here a sample question from a physics GCSE paper this morning? What would you use to look at stars?
a)telescope
b)microscope
c)a catheter tube
d) I can't remember, but it was a cricket bat or something.

On topic: voting is about choice with not voting constituting one of them.
JulianC

Tests have always had easy questions. Remember that the paper has to be able to test the knowledge of the E-F candidates, as well as the A-B ones.

Without sounding trite, what is the point of someone only able to obtain a cabbage grade sitting the examination in the first place?

Julian - trolling or do you really think like that? Plonker

Very eloquent.

Right, I'm really bad at brick-laying. Let's say for example, I take a brick-laying examination. Passes are graded between A, the highest and F, the lowest attainable pass. I achieve an F.

Would you want me to build your house?

My point was that you can either do something or you cannot. That's life. What purpose does a poor pass at something as important as physics constitute? It's meaningless.

Now do carry on being an internet hard man.....

[i]Right, I'm really bad at brick-laying. Let's say for example, I take a brick-laying examination. Passes are graded between A, the highest and F, the lowest attainable pass. I achieve an F.[/i]

I think I see a flaw in your argument though.
By your logic, F becomes a pointless grade, because it's the lowest.
So let's scrap it and make E the lowest. You obtain an E.
Now E becomes a pointless grade because it's the lowest. You can see where this is going.

Forcing people to vote would just screw up the system and make those people vote for the most outspoken/publicised party - bad direction. Having a get-out clause is exactly the same as having the option to not vote.

Tests have always had easy questions. Remember that the paper has to be able to test the knowledge of the E-F candidates, as well as the A-B ones.

Not quite true, GCSE exams were (when i did them) sat in certain bands of paper, the hardest paper only allowed you to get B up to A*, if you got less than was needed for a B you got a U (ungraded, i.e. fail), the next paper down allowed C to A only and no matter what you couldnt get an A* etc, you were selected for which paper you were going to enter based on mock exams. This way you dont waste the time of the brighter students answerign 2+2 and likewise you allow a better resolution of results in all categories instead of making it essentially a pass-fail situation.

I think I see a flaw in your argument though.
By your logic, F becomes a pointless grade, because it's the lowest.
So let's scrap it and make E the lowest. You obtain an E.
Now E becomes a pointless grade because it's the lowest. You can see where this is going.

I'm seeing his logic, if you dont set a minimum level of attainment you dont really pass. i.e. if you did it with doctors you wouldnt want someone to pass with an F and be allowed to operate on you. IF you dont attain a C I dont want you near me, it doesnt then make C a pointless grade, it just means a minimum pass standard is set, by which you can say that the applicant has specific capabilities to a minimum standard that is safe to operate, rather than "yeah I passed but I'm pretty useless". Maybe I'm missing the point having not read through it all.

The system that the OP proposes is (as I think hels pointed out) pretty much exactly the same as the one used in Australia. People are obliged to show up. They have the option of voting None, but in practice, having made the effort to show up, most people will actually cast a vote.

The result is a much higher turnover but not (AFAIK) any fundamental difference in how their politics works.

I'm not sure I buy compulsory voting as an infringement of my rights, except in the most basic sense of infringing my right to do what I want all the time. I have to pay the taxes levied by the people making the laws, so requiring me to select who makes the laws does not seem to be a greater imposition.

🙂

I think i'd vote for the most inappropriate candidate on the sheet if I was legally obliged to vote. I'm sure I can't be the only bloody minded person in the UK 🙂

There have been many more posts on here than I expected: thank you.

Would it hurt to pop down to the polling station? I think not: it'll probably be pretty close. And it does matter!

Would it hurt to pop down to the polling station?

That's not what hurts.

It's the feeling that I'm voting for someone to enrich himself/herself at my expense that hurts.

It's the feeling that, because my wife has to work in London during the week, we have to bear the full cost of two homes, when MPs line their pockets by claiming ludicrous amounts for living with their sisters or claiming for their parents' house.

People may have died for the right to vote, but I bet if you told them it was only the right to choose between Gordon Brown and David Cameron, they'd ask for their lives back.

Politicians are in it for what they can get for them selves, power and money. Doesn't matter what the "Great unwashed" vote, we do not decide who get the job.

Politicians can all **** off - i don't vote for any of them, i vote for the black market economy as its the only thing keeping the people of this country alive. IMO

80/20

Citizen Peregrine.

No!

eldridge, peregrine and spungebob have just proven themselves to be the kind of utter wnakers that are ruining this country and exactly the sort of thoughtless ****s that I want to escape by leaving this country.

Yes, I'm sure you'll say 'good riddance' but I say 'good riddance' to you, you mindless arseh*les.

You deserve the country you'll get, as do all those who who are too stupid to see the writing on the wall.

Maybe when it is compulsory for these elected people to do what they say they will, give us straight answers and to be fully accountable to the electorate I'll consider voting for one of them. At the moment we give them a cushy lifestyle and a job we can't sack them from if they are incompetent or even proven liars, so I see no reason why I should actually offer them my confidence

Guilliano = +1

[i]Would it hurt to pop down to the polling station? I think not: it'll probably be pretty close. And it does matter! [/i]

I didn't vote in the last election.
I thought carefully about it - my choices were the existing conservative mp - who is an excelent local mp, but idelogically we share nothing in common. Labour, who won't get my vote whilst the memory of iraq is still in my mind, or libdem - who normally I'd vote for (even though they don't stand a chance of bein elected locally) but the prospective parlimentary candidate showed herself to be a complete idiot by desperately trying (and failing) to spin various local events in her favour.
None of these candidates had any merit over the others so I chose not to vote. Had we a proportional voting system, then I would have voted libdem figuring that even the local idiot wouldn't get in, the party would get a vote. But we don't.
Had I been compelled to vote, I still wouldn't have chosen any of the above. The only difference being that the country would now have more legislation, and would be spending a lot of extra money to enforce it.
Making voting compulsory is silly if you don't have a system where your vote is worthwhile.